Aid agencies upset at cuts to foreign aid

Updated
August 02, 2013 19:42:00

UNICEF Australia has condemned the Federal Government's decision to slash foreign aid to pay for the PNG solution. It's a remarkable turn-around for a government that came to power preaching a commitment to increase spending on foreign aid.

PETER LLOYD: UNICEF in Australia has condemned Labor's decision to slash foreign aid to pay for the PNG solution.

Eight-hundred and seventy-nine million dollars is to be cut over four years from the aid budget. Around half will go to PNG in an effective doubling of its aid program, and that's in return for the support of the tougher asylum seeker policy.

It's a remarkable turn-around for a government that came to power preaching a commitment to increase spending on foreign aid.

The Foreign Minister Bob Carr insists no aid programs will be cut, but AusAID is now scrambling to adjust its priorities and forward budgets.

UNICEF Australia head, Dr Norman Gillespie, says the Government has rolled back the ambition three times since 2007 to the tune of $5.8 billion. That, he says, means Labor has in fact cut foreign aid by 14 per cent while in power.

NORMAN GILLESPIE: The aid budget makes up just 1.5 per cent of the total government budget and yet over the last three years the sector has taken cuts of 14 per cent. That's a big disproportionate cut, which tells me there really isn't principle behind this, that this is a soft target.

On top of all the other delays and cuts that we have had, and the whole idea of still hitting our target of 0.5 gross national income, which was committed by Mr Carr and by Mr Rudd, is just not credible.

PETER LLOYD: So in your view it's not a possible target that they could realistically reach?

NORMAN GILLESPIE: It would mean an enormous balloon payment at the end of the period.

PETER LLOYD: They'd have to find that money?

NORMAN GILLESPIE: Yes it's very... it's just not credible and look this is affecting programs which are really very successful, which are really saving lives through simple interventions of immunisation, children's going to school, mother (inaudible) - all those front line programs will have to be cut back now because of this.

PETER LLOYD: AusAID had said today that they are still to work out what this big number cut means in terms of programs being cut. But as you say we had past experience in budget cuts, what countries have been hit most and what kind of programs are suffering?

NORMAN GILLESPIE: Well all of the basic programs will have to take a cut on this and really there is so much need in our very near region. So much progress has been made, there are 14,000 more children under five survive today than two decades ago, why stall that progress now?

There's another 19,000 children who die needlessly every day, these are the kinds of targets that the world is coming to terms with. Australia, one of the wealthiest nations in the world yet 16th in the rank of OECD countries - we are just not generous, we're not stepping up, this is a further signal that we're not taking this seriously.

PETER LLOYD: Does this kind of decision affect strongly the public's perception of why aid is even important?

The story two or three years ago was that it was terribly important, it was partly due to the Government's commitment to fight international terrorism through counter-terrorism operations and counter-terrorism focused funding for weak countries like Bangladesh after 2002.

Does this unravel all of that good public policy work about explaining why there's a public good in aid?

NORMAN GILLESPIE: Well it certainly undermines any principles that have been put forward, because we are told sometimes, politicians tell us we love what you do but actually our voters don't really care that much. I would say they should need to check with their constituencies.

UNICEF's been recently talking to voters at community centres and Saturday markets, doorknocking to really find out their views on aid.

They do think that we give a lot more aid than we do, they don't imagine its 35 cents in every hundred and secondly, they're really surprised and uplifted how much progress has been made through reducing child mortality and eliminating disease.

PETER LLOYD: When Sandy Holloway did his report about aid in 2010 he did say that the national interest test must still be applied to decisions about aid, and on that basis is it still justified that we give so much money to just two countries - Indonesia gets about $1 billion and PNG at least $500 million and now more under the PNG solution?

NORMAN GILLESPIE: Well I'm not going to comment on the politics of using aid money for other means but certainly it's been well rehearsed that aid does more than just alleviating poverty, it really is in the national interest that we strengthen all these countries around us that we have educated people, we do have enough facilities at the source of the issue to alleviate some of the things that we're seeing now with people obviously coming here in desperate situations.

So yes, aid is complex but it has many, many benefits.

PETER LLOYD: Have you heard from other international agencies that there is concern around the world about Australia's governments' decisions to cut the budget continually of AusAID?

NORMAN GILLESPIE: Well there's certainly a lot of puzzlement as well, I mean we've had Bill Gates here recently saying 'I'm putting my money where I think it is most needed, I'm challenging governments and I'm challenging you Australia to step up.'

PETER LLOYD: But he also took that message to a private meeting with the prime minister.

NORMAN GILLESPIE: I understand he did yes.

PETER LLOYD: How strongly was it represented to her?

NORMAN GILLESPIE: Well I believe very strongly and Bill Gates is very much admired for his leadership in this so he and others will be surprised by the latest cuts.